MIT (Maker) Women Rock

MIT (Maker) Women Rock As many of you know I am a FIRST Robotics nut and Kool-Aid drinking member of the Kult of Kamen. One of the (many) things Dean Kamen has said that has always resonated with me is that we are what we celebrate. Celebrity is fundamentally heroic; even our most tragic celebrity narratives (#winning) still construct the archetypes we pattern ourselves after. This is an issue Ive written about before in other venues on the subject of gridiron football amidst a growing body of evidence that football causes traumatic brain injury, the NFL continues to sell photos of big hits and stupid sportswriters continue to laud players who play through injury. What we celebrate, and whom we praise as heroes, becomes what we want to become. Deans point was that we spend too much time celebrating athletes, musicians, and movie stars and not enough time celebrating technologists and engineers. I agree with him. And I agree especially in the case of women. Ive posted blog entries before about women at MIT, because we have great women here studying in fields especially STEM in which women have been historically underrepresented. Why have women been underrepresented? Well, there are many reasons, reasons too complex to discuss in a PhD dissertation, let alone a blog post. But one of them is best summed up by this SMBC cartoon: And another, related reason is that public role models for women have rarely been scientists and engineers. This isnt to say that there havent been terrific women in STEM just that, as with Rosalind Franklin, they often havent been as recognized as they should have been. They havent been celebrated. As one blogger pointed out, look at any magazine rack and you can see what popular culture celebrates in women: Wait, hang onwhats that on the cover of WIRED? From Makezine: Engineer, kit maker, entrepreneur, MAKE advisory board member, open source hardware pioneer Limor Ladyada Fried is on April’s WIRED cover. This is the first female engineer to appear WIRED’s cover (as well as the first female engineer to appear on such a high-profile tech publication that I can recall). Ladyada owns. Shes credited by many with being responsible for driving the arduino revolution. She also runs her own business, creates elaborate engineering tutorials and epic electronics projects. And oh yeah, she got her undergraduate and graduate degrees in electrical engineering and computer science from MIT, with a totally kickass thesis project on Social Defense Mechanisms: In contemporary Western society, electronic devices are becoming so prevalent that many people find themselves surrounded by technologies they find frustrating or annoying. The electronics industry has little incentive to address this complaint; I designed two counter-technologies to help people defend their personal space from unwanted electronic intrusion. Both devices were designed and prototyped with reference to the culture-jamming “Design Noir” philosophy. The first is a pair of glasses that darken whenever a television is in view. The second is low- power RF jammer capable of preventing cell phones or similarly intrusive wireless devices from operating within a user’s personal space. By building functional prototypes that reflect equal consideration of technical and social issues, I identify three attributes of Noir products: Personal empowerment, participation in a critical discourse, and subversion. Congrats, Ladyada, for being on the cover of WIRED. You own. And, more importantly, you give me cause to believe that perhaps we are celebrating the right things. For the first time in a long time, Deans axiom is itself cause for celebration.

Quick Crystal Growing Projects

`` An Outpost Of Progress `` By Joseph Conrad And William...

â€Å"What are your thoughts?† â€Å"When reading seems to be an activity with which fewer and fewer people engage, what is the point of reading fiction or poetry? It seems to be the case, as one critic claims, that it’s not that â€Å"Johnny can’t read† but that â€Å"Johnny won’t read.† Fiction is evocative and subjective. It s made up and indirect in its communication. Fiction may evoke feelings and perception on the human condition and teach us just how fragile our cultures are from keeping history and thought between the lines. In the story â€Å"An outpost of progress† by Joseph Conrad and in William Blake s â€Å"London† we can see for ourselves the human condition of conflict and mortality. Fiction is subjective. A novel or poem is from an authors imagination and way of thinking. The characters and situations are made up. Readers do not expect fiction to portray the real world yet expect fiction to just reflects it. Yet fiction can seem real without being total fact showing us the human condition in culture. Poems can capture feelings or images to perfection with only the sound of the spoken language. In the story â€Å"An outpost of progress† by Joseph Conrad we see both conflict and mortality when Carlier and Kayerts both go through tribulations to become successful. With constant arguing and making a deal for slave trading, during a seemingly trivial matter after losing moral throughout the story, sugar sparks an irrational, uncontrolled and violent conflict between them ends with

Hamlet Thesis Free Essays

Hamlet Thesis Statement In the play Hamlet, William Shakespeare writes of a tragedy in which Hamlet and Laertes both face the same problem-a murdered father. The paths of revenge that each of them take, parallel their characters and personalities throughout the play. While Hamlet broods over the murder of his father for the majority of the play, Laertes takes immediate action, and upon hearing about the death of his father, he rushes in and is ready to kill Claudius-whom he suspects has killed his father. We will write a custom essay sample on Hamlet Thesis or any similar topic only for you Order Now When they first hear the news of their father’s death, Hamlet and Laertes react in very different ways. When Hamlet hears that Claudius was the one who killed his father, his immediate reaction was grief. This is no surprise, due to the fact that he was still mourning the death of his father, although everyone else had already gotten over it. In fact, most people thought that he was overdoing it ,and Claudius went so far as to tell him that he should get over it, and â€Å"Yet so far hath discretion fought with nature that we with wisest sorrow think on him together with remembrance of ourselves† (act one, scene two). The way that Hamlet plans his revenge, is more intelligent than the way Laertes plans his. While Hamlet is a more intellectual person, as we can see from his quick wit and sarcasm, Laertes is more impulsive and â€Å"acts, then thinks† as we can see when he says â€Å"I am justly killed with mine own treachery† (act five, scene two). In such a situation, had the play not ended the way it did, Hamlet may have been more successful in avenging his father’s murder because of his responsibility and intellect. Despite the fact that Hamlet procrastinates, Hamlet was smarter in the way he planned his revenge because his procrastination was due to his grief and foresight. Although Laertes trait of acting quickly can be admired and gets the job done, in a situation that involves death and vengeance, strategy and discretion are a must. From the beginning of the play, we can see that Hamlet is an intellectual thinker. Although he believes the ghost and pronounces that â€Å"it is an honest ghost† (act one, scene five) , he still takes precautions after he promises the ghost that he will take revenge. However, Hamlet is still a little wary of the ghost and therefor decides to feign madness so that he would be able to find out if Claudius was the true killer of his father. Even while feigning madness Hamlet thinks about the whole process of the madness. Unlike Laertes, Hamlet is careful not to disclose what the ghost has told him and only imparts to Horatio and Marcellus what happened when they swear on his sword that they would never speak of what they saw from that point on. One of the reasons why Hamlet is such a procrastinator is because he becomes caught up in the details and potential consequences. In the soliloquy of â€Å"to be or not to be† (act three, scene two) Hamlet loses the will to live and ponders whether it is worth it to exist. Due to the fact that Hamlet suffered the death of his father at a young age as well as well as many other hardships, Hamlet contemplates whether â€Å"Tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against the sea of troubles and by opposing, end them? To die: to sleep; no more;† (act three, scene two). However, after that, Hamlet mentions the potential consequences of the unknown after death. Due to the death of his father and his mother’s hasty remarriage which Hamlet does not approve of, Hamlet is well aware of the consequences of his actions and therefore is hesitant to act rashly. When planning his revenge, Hamlet does not jump to conclusions. When the players come, Hamlet asks them to perform â€Å"The Mousetrap†-a play of a murder similar to that of Hamlet’s father’s. Hamlet hopes that â€Å"The plays the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king† (act two, scene two). Indeed, the plan worked and when Claudius stormed out of the theatre, all of Hamlets suspicions were confirmed. As Hamlet so eloquently noted, â€Å"What, frightened with false fire? †, (act three, scene two) Hamlet was now positive that Claudius was at fault for murdering his father. Another thing that slows Hamlet down in his plan of revenge is that he is a religious catholic, and he is very concerned about mortality. Hamlet is scared that if he kills Claudius, his father’s murderer, his soul will be damned. Hamlet is also scared that if he kills Claudius while he is praying, Claudius will go to heaven and that would not please Hamlet because he said that â€Å"A villain kills my father, and, for that, I, his sole son, do this same villain send to heaven† (act three, scene three). Contrary to Hamlet, Laertes followed the passion in his heart. As soon as he returned from France and heard the news, he invaded the palace, and then asked the questions- the complete opposite of Hamlet. When Laertes hears that Hamlet killed his father, he expresses intense anger and openly announces his plan to take revenge. In his rage, Laertes yells that â€Å"Let what comes come, only I’ll be revenged most thoroughly for my father† (act four, scene five) and makes up his mind to take revenge no matter how or where. When Hamlet heard that his father had been murdered by Claudius, he had already been grieving his father’s death for a while and although the pain was still fresh, his father’s death was old news to him. Therefore, Hamlet was still able to think rationally and plan his revenge in a more intelligent manner. However, when Laertes heard about his father’s murder, he was so grief stricken that he could not think rationally and just followed what his heart told him- to kill Hamlet. Unlike Hamlet, Laertes has no problem â€Å"to cut his throat i’ th’ church! †(Act four, scene seven). To Laertes, mortality doesn’t mean alot, as he so bluntly puts it- â€Å"Conscience and grace, to the profoundest pit! I dare damnation. † (Act four, scene five) Due to his impulsive nature, Laertes tends to be unstable at times. However, Claudius, who suspects Hamlets unusual behavior, joins forces with Laertes to devise a plan to kill Hamlet. This proves a weakness of Laertes’- being unable to carry out his plans singlehandedly. Together, they scheme to kill Hamlet and even come up with a backup plan in case the first one does not go as planned. In the end, his plan of using a poisoned sword backfires when Hamlet ends up using the poisoned sword on him. When weighing in the pros and cons of each of their personalities and flaws, Hamlet took the smarter route in avenging his father’s murder. Although both Hamlet and Laertes die at the end of the play, the reason Hamlet kills himself is because he had nothing to live for. Ophelia, the love of his life was dead, his father was dead and Claudius had died. Since he had nothing to live for, he chose the option of death. On the other hand, Laertes had no choice in the matter because his plan backfired on him and killed him, as we see at the end. Hamlets patience paid off because he, Hamlet achieved his goal, and Laertes, the son of a fishmonger, did not. How to cite Hamlet Thesis, Essay examples

misc Essays - Astrological Signs, Astrology, Alchemy,

Aries, Uranus and Revolution It is the beginning of the new year in Aries and time to effect radical changes in our lives! In Pisces we cleared the decks of debri from the past year, now we are ready to invoke and draw down the forces of revolutionary Uranus, ruler of Aries. In esoteric astrology there are three rulers given for each sign, which correspond to the personality, soul and spirit, or monad. The monadic or ?hierarchical? ruler is rarely discussed in these newsletters as most of us are flat-out just invoking soul - and dealing with its effects upon the unredeemed personality! Yet everyone has the capacity to intelligently invoke forces that are available when the Sun or any other planets are in a given sign; the times today urgently demand that we do so - and raise our game. Uranus is the monadic ruler of Aries and is the essential fiery essence that impulses forth from this sign. Uranus is at once pure spirit and yet as ruler of the seventh ray of Ceremonial Magic, is able to anchor that spirit into matter. It is said that Uranus leads the soul to the final ?burning ground? where major testings for initiation are undergone. Uranus is the manifester who rules the Occult Way and is connected with the Hierophant of the Mysteries of Initiation. Uranus is known to most of us as the ruler of Aquarius and represents the humanitarian revolutionary who overturns that which has become too crystallised in the previous sign Capricorn. As soul ruler of Libra, Uranus leads us from the personal to the impersonal in our relationships and is related to the right use of money and sex. However, Uranus as ruler of Aries represents the ?raincloud of knowable things? as Patanjali has it, the very source of thoughtforms and the best and brightest ideas that exist; those ideas that we can wrestle from the ?mind of God?, that we can obtain through ?seeding? the raincloud. (Students will note another connection with Aquarius the Water-Bearer here.) Mercury?s job as soul ruler of Aries is the messenger or ?go-between? (?I come forth from the plane of mind and rule?) for this ongoing ?precipitation?. Mars as personality ruler is poised for action on the physical plane ready to implement the idea. This period of time upon Earth has never been so urgent. We are in the middle of an unique cycle where the utmost is being demanded of us all. There can be no losing the fiery tension needed to consolidate ongoing, unfolding individual and collective purpose. The world is upon a knife-edge, plagued by instability and fear, immanent epidemics, hunger, food water and soil degradation, climate change, increasing violence, money mismanagement and widespread apathy. These are all facets of the Earth?s shadow, thrown into sharp relief and pushed into critical mode by a steadily increasing soul light. This gives us much pause for reflection - the chaos of the times is not just the conflicting forces of the cusp of the ages and the many other ray and cyclic energies; it is the very birthing of the soul of humanity in a collective sense ? and it is a difficult birth! Aries is a sign of birth following the previous sign of death in Pisces; it is the soul or spirit coming into manifestation. Each year we have the opportunity during this major solar festival of Easter (where the Sun or Son is exalted), to rebirth ourselves anew with an ?updated model? that approximates more closely the blueprint of our individual soul purpose. Uranus is that force that can help us effect radical and revolutionary change through ?penetrating and precipitating the raincloud? ? by finding those divine archetypal patterns that can create your new model. Perhaps a general revolution is approaching where the creaking and groaning of the past ways will reach such a din that Uranus the Liberator will be invoked to break the impasse through radical change. It is an interesting word, ?radical?. The old name for a birth chart is the ?radical? chart, meaning the origin or root. Hence to effect radical change is to get back to the essence of who we truly are, the core of Being. Surviving within a greater culture

Rock Story essays

Rock Story essays I am a calcite mineral. I have changed a lot in the last few thousand years. I have been in many different types of rocks. Let me tell you about it. I started out in a metaphoric rock. I was a mineral in garnet, along with quartz and hematite. I became that way when I worked my way into the Earths surface and met quartz and hematite. We became very good friends and decided to form a rock together. So we went further into the earth surface and got heated by magma to become garnet. Then I got into a fight with quartz and hematite and we all thought it was best to go our separate ways. I worked my way up to the earths upper mantle where I melted and cooled in magma. I was now an igneous rock. After a very long time I worked my way up to the surface of the earth. It was so good to finally see the sun again! I was an igneous rock for thousands of years, and I liked it that way. I was in the wind so much though that I became a sedimentary rock. I formed limestone with aragonite. When I was a sedimentary rock I eventually got washed away down a river and into the ocean. After thousands of years I settled on the ocean floor and other layers of minerals formed on top of me. We were all pressed together and I was once again sedimentary rock. But this didnt last as long as I though it would because there was an earthquake and I got pushed down far into the earths crust. From the pressure of the earths crust colliding and the heat of the magma I turned into a metamorphic rock again. Now I sit in the earths crust waiting until I change once again. I hope that I will soon see the sun again, so I wont be so cramped down here with all these other minerals. The heat down here makes everybody a little irritable. It may take thousands of years but one day I will change again and become a different type of rock. ...

The Development of Roads in the Industrial Revolution

The Development of Roads in the Industrial Revolution Pre-1700, the British road network hadn’t experienced many major additions since the Romans had built some over a millennia and a half earlier. The main roads were largely the decayed remains of the Roman system, with little attempt at improvements until after 1750. Queen Mary Tudor had passed a law making parishes responsible for roads, and each was expected to use labour, which workers were obliged to offer, for free six days a year; landowners were expected to offer the materials and equipment. Unfortunately, the workers were not specialised and often didn’t know what to do when they got there, and with no pay there wasn’t much incentive to really try. The result was a poor network with much regional variation. Despite the appalling conditions of the roads, they were still in use and vital in areas not near a major river or port. Freight went via the packhorse, a slow, cumbersome activity which was expensive and low in capacity. Livestock could be moved by herding them while alive, but this was a tiring process. People used the roads to travel, but movement was very slow and only the desperate or the rich travelled much. The road system encouraged parochialism in Britain, with few people – and thus few ideas – and few products travelling widely. The Turnpike Trusts The one bright spot among the British road system were the Turnpike Trusts. These organisations took care of gated sections of road, and charged a toll on everybody travelling along them, to be ploughed into upkeep. The first turnpike was created in 1663 on the A1, although it was not run by a trust, and the idea didn’t catch on until the start of the eighteenth century. The first actual trust was created by Parliament in 1703, and a small number were created each year until 1750. Between 1750 and 1772, with the needs of industrialization pressing, this number was much higher. Most turnpikes improved the speed and quality of travel, but they increased the cost as you now had to pay. While the government spent time arguing over wheel sizes (see below), the turnpikes targeted the root cause of the problem in the shape of road conditions. Their work on improving conditions also produced road specialists who worked on larger solutions which could then be copied. There were criticisms of turnpikes, from a few bad trusts who simply kept all the money, to the fact that only around a fifth of the British road network was covered, and then only the major roads. Local traffic, the main type, benefited much less. In some areas parish roads were actually in better conditions and cheaper. Even so, the expansion of Turnpikes caused a major expansion in wheeled transport. Legislation After 1750 With a growing understanding of Britain’s industrial expansion and population growth, the government passed laws aimed at preventing the road system decaying any further, rather than improving the situation. The Broadwheel Act of 1753 widened the wheels on vehicles to reduce damage, and the General Highway Act of 1767 made adjustments to the wheel size and number of horses per carriage. In 1776 a law provided for parishes to employ men specifically to repair roads. The Results of Improved Roads With the quality of roads improving – albeit slowly and inconsistently – a greater volume could be moved faster, especially expensive items which would absorb the turnpike bills. By 1800 stagecoaches became so frequent that they had their own timetables, and the vehicles themselves were improved with better suspension. British parochialism was broken down and communications improved. For instance, the Royal Mail was set up in 1784, and their coaches took post and passengers across the country. While industry did rely on roads at the start of its revolution, they played a far smaller role in moving freight than the newly emerging transport systems, and it is arguably roads’ weaknesses which stimulated the building of canals and railways. However, where historians once identified a decline in roads as new transport emerged, this is largely rejected now, with the understanding that roads were vital for local networks and the movement of goods and people once they had come off the canals or railways, whereas the latter were more important nationally.